On 2015-10-23 11:56, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
I didn't say once per arch. I said once per package, which is worse. I
normally
schedule binNMUs for several dozens packages. Multiply that by several
But you need to look the number up anyway? The
On 2015-10-23 12:02, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
wanna-build does, yes, but at least the Release Team tend to use the
"wb"
wrapper tool which automatically works out the next free number on
each
architecture.
Ah, cool – so we have only to
On 2015-10-23 13:28, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
[...]
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
[...]
It's also not quite that simple, even working things out by hand - see
#599128
for example.
Hm, I’m still under the impression that the +bN suffix to the Debian
version of the package i
On Fri, 2016-09-30 at 19:04 +, Niels Thykier wrote:
> As for "porter qualification"
> =
>
> We got burned during the Jessie release, where a person answered the
> roll call for sparc and we kept sparc as a release architecture for
> Jessie. However, we ended up wit
On Fri, 2018-06-29 at 10:20 +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
[...]
> debian-riscv has been repeatedly asking for a single zero-impact
> line
> to be included in *one* file in *one* dpkg-related package which
> would
> allow riscv to stop being a NMU architecture and become part of
> debi
On Fri, 2018-06-29 at 11:44 +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
[...]
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 10:35 AM, Adam D. Barratt
> wrote:
>
> > > what is the reason why that package is not moving forward?
> >
> > I assume you're referring to the dpkg upl
On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 02:34 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> I'll make gcc-4.5 the default for (at least some) architectures within the
> next
> two weeks before more transitions start. GCC-4.5 is already used as the
> default
> compiler for almost any other distribution, so there shouldn't be man
Hi,
With the sound of the ever approaching freeze ringing loudly in our ears,
we're (somewhat belatedly) looking at finalising the list of release
architectures for the Wheezy release.
Comments on / additions and corrections to the content of
http://release.debian.org/wheezy/arch_qualify.html wou
Hi,
With the sound of the ever approaching freeze ringing loudly in our ears,
we're (somewhat belatedly) looking at finalising the list of release
architectures for the Wheezy release.
Comments on / additions and corrections to the content of
http://release.debian.org/wheezy/arch_qualify.html wou
On Wed, 2012-05-16 at 13:19 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> With the sound of the ever approaching freeze ringing loudly in our ears,
> we're (somewhat belatedly) looking at finalising the list of release
> architectures for the Wheezy release.
>
> Comments on / additions an
On Wed, 2012-05-16 at 13:19 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> With the sound of the ever approaching freeze ringing loudly in our ears,
> we're (somewhat belatedly) looking at finalising the list of release
> architectures for the Wheezy release.
>
> Comments on / additions an
Hi,
I've just committed a change to britney's configuration, removing all
special-casing of the armhf and s390x architectures. Both now have
release architecture status for wheezy.
So, what does this mean in practice?
- architecture-specific bugs affecting armhf or s390x may be
release-critical
On Sat, 2013-11-02 at 21:11 -0400, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> can you perhaps also provide a backtrace? It seems that there are no
> public s390x porter machines where I could get that myself.
adsb@zelenka:~$ schroot --list | grep s390x
chroot:experimental_s390x-dchroot
chroot:jessie_s390x-dchroot
13 matches
Mail list logo
